Thanks for your answer. This process does not seem to work well. Here is an example: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14624 Two months already and no response. Also no request for a link. And see the last comment from es-wp, so it seems to be a general problem that can potentially hit every project. My impression is that there are no body who feel responsible for this. If it is so, I think we should set up a responsible person for this. As far as I know it doesn't happen every day and it is surely not a thing that takes a lot of time. Any opinion or suggestions? Ting. -------- Original-Nachricht -------- -- GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen! Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/wasistshortview.php?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx

Hoi, I would say that it is a matter of priorities. As far as I am aware the priorities are very much one of: - KEEP THEM ROLLING - We are volunteers and we do as we like Consequently, projects can take multiple years, things do not get done or done whenever. When the WMF has more developer capacity, it may make it a priority to prevent these bugs from bugging us. Thanks, GerardM On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM, VasilievVV <vasilvv(a)gmail.com> wrote:

At first I don't consider this as a bug. So I am a little confused to find it in Bugzilla. It is (for my understanding) a request of a setting. And I see this as part of KEEP THEM ROLLING. As I have said, it is not a day consuming thing and it doesn't happen so often. So I suppose it should be possible to name a responsible person to handle this. If a setting is not meaningful, because it is too difficult, or because it is still in testing phase, it would also not be time consuming to add a comment like "This feature is not yet free for every project". People are not angry because they don't get a feature, they are angry because they don't get a response. This can possibly release such things to the projects. But this extension is not used in our projects, right? Is it then possible that the bureaucrats only can change a bunch of settings or would they have the right to set everything? Regards Ting -- Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser

As someone who has complained about the system in the past, I will explain what I have learned and hope others correct me if anything is in error. First you are looking at bugzilla from the wrong angle. It is not necessarily a mechanism to make certain requests are done so much as one to make certain requests are tracked. To make certain a request is actually done often requires contacting a developer directly and asking him to personally take care of your request linking to the bugzilla page. This personal request may have to be repeated a few times on different occasions till you find a developer at a convenient time. (I have also heard building shrines to these demi-gods is helpful) But all joking aside there is not really any mechanism in place to make sure requests get attention on an organized fashion. It is more a matter of whoever is able to demand attention; receiving it. Birgitte SB --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Ting Chen <Wing.Philopp(a)gmx.de> wrote:

I think there was recently a thread about the press about the paper A Gene Wiki for Community Annotation of Gene Function [1]. I was reading it today and found it interesting in respect to views generally expressed on this mailing list against bot created articles. Personally I can't see why this sort of work described here should be required to be done by hand (as is the case where some wikipedias don't allow this sort of bot creation). Especially when analysis found that after the bot created stubs for all genes in the authorative database that were missing from Wikipedia, "approximately 50% of all edits to gene pages were made on the newly created pages." There is also interesting argument is made about how the existence of a complete network (even if, as in this case, partially consisting of bot-created stubs) leads to more efficient browing of the entire subject area. Obvioulsly not all bot creations are equal, but I wonder if the feelings so often expressed against bot creations have more to do with the manner of creating articles than abandoning them (drive-by creation). This project, run by subject experts who are tracking the additional editing to the created articles and courting more activity with papers like this one seem to be a different matter altogether. So maybe it is not the creation of articles by bot that is a problem so much as creation by bot without a long term plan to work on the completed network of articles. Birgitte SB [1]http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10…

--- On Mon, 7/14/08, Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote: I saw the paper more as part of the effort to attract more subject experts to expand on the stubs than as the final evaluation of the project. Which really plays on what I hoped was a different angle towards the discussion of bot creation. The difference between if someone uses a bot to create stubs from an easily accessible database that they have no longterm interest in, or if an organized group uses a bot to create stubs as part of long-term project that includes contiuned involvement in the articles. Maybe you see no difference there, I don't know since you didn't respond to the conclusion of my email. I think various Wikipedias might be better served regulating the use of bot creation to well planned projects rather than outlawing bot creation. I think this example is a good "best practice" as far as bot creation goes. But most of all I think that every Wikipedia should make their own decision as to what to allow without giving much credit opinions that use hostile terms like "carpet-bombing" or otherwise frame the discussion as battleground between different Wikipedia communities (see previous threads on the subject). Birgitte SB